Ughhh this is sooo true ššš Kim Young Dae is such a GOOD actor, like seriously one of the best of his…
i think he also needs a new stylist for his hair. he has a nice forehead, he should show it more in my humble opinion. i was so impressed when i found out he went to fudan uni in china! that's like, a top 30 uni globally, and he could speak mandarin quite well too.
he acted well in "cheat on me, if you can." why doesn't his agency find him better roles? it's a waste of his talent when he keeps playing braindead romcoms.
yeah i think she had eye surgery in recent years and she also really went for the doe-eye makeup look that exaggerated the size of her eyes. she looks good with her phoenix eyes though and she's a great actress so i don't know why she needed to do any of that. she looked so weird in that drama "no gain, no love" that i felt awkward watching her in it.
shin min ah is an unexpected choice! but i have no complaints! i just don't think lee jong suk is a good choice as heinrey though, nothing against lee jong suk, i do like him but i just don't think he fits the role.... but i agree with the casting of ju ji hoon as sovieshu and lee se young as rashta lmao i can see it already.
In South Korea, you can still file a defamation suit even if the claims are true. KSH fans' belief in him is not steeped in objectivity so their opinions don't count. I have always been neutral about him. I was not a Sae Ron's fan. I believe I'm more capable of objectivity than you guys.
"All the pictures" where? LOL all you have is that Nike shirt and red jacket pics. The dakdoritang pics were from 2018 when she was 17. The letter from the military was from when she was 17. KSH fans are dumber than bricks, they want to believe he's so clean so they villainize everyone but the predator. You're all embarrassing and lead such empty lives. Go back to X and write your cringe hashtags there. At least it's funnier when you're suspended.
KKY has no credibility. So what if she exposed the BSS? The cases are mutually exclusive and completely unrelated. She's just trying desperately to salvage her reputation and wipe her ass clean because she knew she did SR wrong when she was alive. No one gives a crap what Lee Jin Ho says, by the way.
anyone who replies to me "women do it too" will be blocked without regrets. i broke a friendship with a guy who…
Current data shows that while the gap in infidelity rates between men and women is narrowing, there's no evidence to support the idea that women have always cheated more and simply lied about it. The increase in reported infidelity among women likely reflects societal changes and greater openness, not a historical trend of higher female infidelity.
Wow, just wow! Appears you selectively believe EVERYthing you read on the internet and social media is the truth.…
So everything the KSR family presented is not true and "just something you read on the internet", but is everything presented by LJH and KSH's side is true and not on the internet?
KSR, her family, Gaseyeon, have presented evidence with a believable timeline. What has KSH's side presented so far? Nothing. His rebuttals and excuses are all incoherent, like his fans. His timeline is a mess. All LJH did was to make up lies, and of course his fans believe them all, because they all desperately want to believe the innocence of a monster. And then there are people like you, who are still unable to decide which side has presented a more credible and coherent case. LMAO
You're someone who said you don't believe in anything. So you don't have an opinion. And yet here you are again, trying to insert your opinion that "nothing is believable". Just because you have a failed understanding in this case doesn't make your "i don't know, it's up for debate, i'm just a neutral" opinion more valid than everyone elseās. Itās honestly baffling how some people like you can be so smug in your willful ignorance.
What is it that you can't decide? You can't decide because you don't want to be on the "wrong" side when this concludes? Is that it? This isn't just an "internet" discourse about a fictional ship.
This concerns a powerful and rich celebrity who abuses his power and fame and cornered an actress who had a bright future, brighter than his. She was more famous than he wasājust because she wasn't as prominent in dramas, which is why you international guys didn't know her, doesn't mean she was a nobody in Korea. Everyone knew her in Korea. She worked mainly in films. So stop using that condescending tone on people who have a clear mind when your own beliefs are muddled.
edit: i noticed that you straight up jumped into defending your fake neutrality instead of calling out someone who wishes harm on another person over something you supposedly labeled as trivial "internet discourse". so don't try to act big when you can't even uphold basic human decency over your own ego.
""Grooming is legal in S.Korea prior to 2020""Even if we imagine it's true for a second, that doesn't make it…
of course not. but the issue here isn't:
"it's legal, but it doesn't make it ok"
the issue here is that people are insisting something is legal when it is clearly not.
the issue here is there are so many people misinterpreting the law and insisting that exploitative, manipulative and coercive behaviour like grooming was ālegalā pre-2020 simply because the existing legislations failed to hold previous perpetrators accountable.
it doesn't mean there were no laws, or that it was "legal".
the issue here is people pushing the belief that just because the existing law has not been as robust, or as coherent in defending victims, they are conflating what is acceptable and what is legal.
All the people who said the "Grooming is legal in S.Korea prior to 2020" need to do their fucking research on…
The Korean Law Translation Center provides English translations of South Korean laws. Search for the Act on the Protection of Children and Youth Against Sexual Abuse (1997) and related legislations.
South Korean laws in Korean. You can search for relevant laws using keywords like āģėĀ·ģ²ģė ģ ģ±ė³“ķøģ ź“ķ ė²ė„ ā (Act on the Protection of Children and Youth Against Sexual Abuse).
Those who insist that āCASES BEFORE 2020 WERE LEGALā need to get a grip. You are dangerously misunderstanding the law.
South Koreaās Act on the Protection of Children and Youth Against Sexual Abuse (1997) has always criminalized sexual acts with minors under 19 in exploitative situations (which includes grooming), regardless of consent. The 2020 amendment you spoke of simply clarified the age of consent as 16āit did not suddenly make grooming illegal. It has always, ALWAYS been illegal under this law.
Willfully insisting that cases before 2020 were ālegalā, based on cases of acquittal is a deeply harmful and severe misunderstanding of these serious crimes and what entailed the acquittal in the first place!
You're willfully ignoring that there is an obvious and inherent power imbalance and manipulation as well as coercion, something that the law has long recognised but repeatedly fail to protect victims even with long standing, existing legislations.
Stop spreading this dangerous misinformation saying "IT WAS LEGAL" and do your damn research. Exploiting a minor is never acceptable, and it was NEVER legal. Laws have existed, they just failed to properly protect the victims. The amendment in 2020 was a "strengthening of existing laws" to protect them, it was not a "newly created, revolutionary law". S. Korea has always had existing laws in place regarding manipulation and coercion, and grooming falls under this.
What made this case difficult is the fact that Sae Ron has passed away and unable to defend herself. So how could you expect the parents to go to the police when the perpetrator is someone like Kim Soo Hyun with immense wealth, power and influence?! I'm done with this.
All the people who said the "Grooming is legal in S.Korea prior to 2020" need to do their fucking research on this before spewing harmful crap that will encourage more men to commit a crime like this.
The claim that grooming was ālegalā before 2020 is completely and utterly false. S. Korea has always had laws like the Act on the Protection of Children and Youth Against Sexual Abuse (1997) that criminalised exploitation of minors, regardless of the age of consent. Grooming was never ever legalāit was always a form of exploitation. Just because there had been cases of predators who were acquitted does not mean it was 'legal' - it was simply because they took advantage of a weak system back then. If it was 'legal' none of the cases would have gone to court. It was precisely because it was illegal that the prosecutors had a case! And they still had to fight it out. Do you even understand how the law and courts work!? The ignorance in this thread is baffling.
The familyās decision not to press charges doesnāt mean the behavior was legal. It has NEVER BEEN LEGAL.
Going to the media is not an admission that the law was on the groomerās sideāitās proof that systemic barriers exist, making it difficult for influential individuals like Kim Soo Hyun to be challenged when they have committed such a crime.
Look at the masses of supporters on Kim Soo Hyun's side even after the family has stepped forward.
Itās naive to assume that the police are completely bias-free. To suggest that the family should simply āgo to the policeā and expect them to cuff up Kim Soo Hyun and press charges with the drop of a hat ignores the reality of difficult it is to pursue justice for victims. To assume that the police would automatically arrest a high-profile individual based on whether something is "legal" or "illegal" is unrealistic and dismissive of the systemic challenges victims and their families face.
This isnāt a simple case of a DUI, where evidence is straightforward and power dynamics are irrelevant. Exploitation and grooming are complex crimes that hide and thrive in the shadows of power and privilege. The fact that Kim Soo Hyun wasnāt arrested doesnāt mean his actions were legalāor that it was legal pre-2020 before the clarification of the law that has now made it harder for offenders to squirm out of their crimes.
The reason he wasnāt arrested has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with his power, influence, and the systemic corruption that protects celebrities and powerful individuals.
When a celebrity has the resources to intimidate victims, manipulate public opinion, and sway law enforcement, justice becomes harder to pursue. Justice becomes a privilege for the wealthy and powerful. The family didnāt go to the police because they knew the system would fail themānot because the law was on his side. Stop twisting this into a debate about legality.
JUST LOOK AT THE DAMN POWER IMBALANCE IN THIS CASE. Kim Soo Hyun with his money and resources has been manipulating everything in the media from Day 1. Do you honestly believe someone with his level of power couldnāt use his money and connections to pressure the police or silence the family? Do you think the police are incorruptible? Are you guys for real?! Did you skip that article where his team had been calling Sae Ron's dad non-stop even though they told the media they're not in contact!? Everything they said had been nothing but lies.
This case isn't a simple binary situation of "it's legal prior to 2020" or "it's illegal post-2020". This is a complex, deeply sensitive issue involving the exploitation of a minor and the systemic failures that allow powerful individuals like Kim Soo Hyun to evade accountability.
South Korea, like many other countries, has a history of celebrities and influential figures using their status to shield themselves from consequences. Instead of oversimplifying the situation, do your goddamn research and understand the realities of how power, money, and influence distort justice in cases like this, and not just willfully insisting that, "it was legal pre-2020" because it CERTAINLY WAS NOT.
Grooming is NOT allowed under S. Korean law.Grooming (building an emotional connection with a minor to exploit…
///Grooming is a subjective definition - based on our values. ///
GROOMING IS A SUBJECTIVE DEFINITION BASED ON YOUR VALUES??? YOUR VALUES?!
LMFAO. yeah, that totally said everything about YOUR values.
grooming has NEVER been legal in s.korea. saying it is "legal" because there was a loophole in the law pre-2020 is outright wrong.
//why was the police not involved//
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LEGALITY. KSH is a person with influence, money, fame and power. do you really think it would be easy for the police to take the family seriously!? have you not read that the family are taking steps to charge him from day 1? but they never wanted to reach that step, their first demand was f or him to apologise and acknowledge that he was the cause of their daughter's death.
///His actions of grooming and having sex with a minor over 13 were totally legal prior to 2020///
NOT LEGAL. just because the case was lost and the law was not robust enough to prosecute an offender, does not mean there was NOT a law in place. it has NEVER been legal. it's people like you who misunderstand and abuse the law that enable so many predators to go off scot-free.
Grooming is NOT allowed under S. Korean law.Grooming (building an emotional connection with a minor to exploit…
yes, that is why i said in my first post, that these laws have always been in place, but with loopholes, even normal men tend to get away with it. also, precedents are not absolute. this is why we have prosecutors to argue on behalf of the victims.
courts exist to interpret and apply the law based on the specific facts of each case. precedents are based on the specific facts and circumstances of a case. if the facts of a new case are different, the precedent may not apply. judges have the discretion to distinguish between cases. they can rule that a precedent does not apply if the circumstances are sufficiently different in the current case.
courts are not bound to follow a single precedent blindly, especially if it conflicts with current laws or societal values. high-profile cases often lead to public outrage, in which the court would also take this into consideration. as with the case you linked, that case has led to reforms of the law seeing the age raised to 16 in an effort to **clarify** the law. it DOES NOT mean that previously, it was "legal". it just means the existing law was not enough to protect the victim. grooming has ALWAYS been illegal in s. korea under the Act of Protection of Children and Youth and has always been recognised as a form of exploitation and coercion.
so yes, kim soo hyun could get away with it by saying sae ron consented, thereby the defense would be able to use the precedent as an argument.
my disagreement with you guys is your claim that "grooming is legal prior to 2020" - which is NOT true. grooming has always been illegal under other protection acts, and there was a loophole in that law that enabled offenders to get off scot-free. it does not mean that it was "legal" in any sense of the word.
Grooming is NOT allowed under S. Korean law.Grooming (building an emotional connection with a minor to exploit…
Grooming is about exploitation. It's not about stating a specific age where it is "legal".
Even if the age of consent wasnāt explicitly defined pre-2020, manipulating a minor into a sexual relationship has **always** been a crime. The 2020 update to specify the age of consent as 16 was about **clarifying** the law, not suddenly making it something illegal before the age of 16. Sexual exploitation of minors was always punishable under broader child protection laws. For minors aged 13ā19, sexual acts could be prosecuted if they involved exploitation, coercion, or abuse of authority. For someone of Kim Soo Hyun's position, this definitely can fall under any of those categories even BEFORE 2020.
1
1
i was so impressed when i found out he went to fudan uni in china! that's like, a top 30 uni globally, and he could speak mandarin quite well too.
I have always been neutral about him. I was not a Sae Ron's fan.
I believe I'm more capable of objectivity than you guys.
Who's arguing about the looks? It's not even a debate. š
KSR, her family, Gaseyeon, have presented evidence with a believable timeline. What has KSH's side presented so far? Nothing. His rebuttals and excuses are all incoherent, like his fans. His timeline is a mess. All LJH did was to make up lies, and of course his fans believe them all, because they all desperately want to believe the innocence of a monster. And then there are people like you, who are still unable to decide which side has presented a more credible and coherent case. LMAO
You're someone who said you don't believe in anything. So you don't have an opinion. And yet here you are again, trying to insert your opinion that "nothing is believable". Just because you have a failed understanding in this case doesn't make your "i don't know, it's up for debate, i'm just a neutral" opinion more valid than everyone elseās. Itās honestly baffling how some people like you can be so smug in your willful ignorance.
What is it that you can't decide? You can't decide because you don't want to be on the "wrong" side when this concludes? Is that it? This isn't just an "internet" discourse about a fictional ship.
This concerns a powerful and rich celebrity who abuses his power and fame and cornered an actress who had a bright future, brighter than his. She was more famous than he wasājust because she wasn't as prominent in dramas, which is why you international guys didn't know her, doesn't mean she was a nobody in Korea. Everyone knew her in Korea. She worked mainly in films. So stop using that condescending tone on people who have a clear mind when your own beliefs are muddled.
edit: i noticed that you straight up jumped into defending your fake neutrality instead of calling out someone who wishes harm on another person over something you supposedly labeled as trivial "internet discourse". so don't try to act big when you can't even uphold basic human decency over your own ego.
"it's legal, but it doesn't make it ok"
the issue here is that people are insisting something is legal when it is clearly not.
the issue here is there are so many people misinterpreting the law and insisting that exploitative, manipulative and coercive behaviour like grooming was ālegalā pre-2020 simply because the existing legislations failed to hold previous perpetrators accountable.
it doesn't mean there were no laws, or that it was "legal".
the issue here is people pushing the belief that just because the existing law has not been as robust, or as coherent in defending victims, they are conflating what is acceptable and what is legal.
https://elaw.klri.re.kr
South Korean Ministry of Government Legislation:
South Korean laws in Korean. You can search for relevant laws using keywords like āģėĀ·ģ²ģė ģ ģ±ė³“ķøģ ź“ķ ė²ė„ ā (Act on the Protection of Children and Youth Against Sexual Abuse).
https://www.moleg.go.kr
Those who insist that āCASES BEFORE 2020 WERE LEGALā need to get a grip. You are dangerously misunderstanding the law.
South Koreaās Act on the Protection of Children and Youth Against Sexual Abuse (1997) has always criminalized sexual acts with minors under 19 in exploitative situations (which includes grooming), regardless of consent. The 2020 amendment you spoke of simply clarified the age of consent as 16āit did not suddenly make grooming illegal. It has always, ALWAYS been illegal under this law.
Willfully insisting that cases before 2020 were ālegalā, based on cases of acquittal is a deeply harmful and severe misunderstanding of these serious crimes and what entailed the acquittal in the first place!
You're willfully ignoring that there is an obvious and inherent power imbalance and manipulation as well as coercion, something that the law has long recognised but repeatedly fail to protect victims even with long standing, existing legislations.
Stop spreading this dangerous misinformation saying "IT WAS LEGAL" and do your damn research. Exploiting a minor is never acceptable, and it was NEVER legal. Laws have existed, they just failed to properly protect the victims. The amendment in 2020 was a "strengthening of existing laws" to protect them, it was not a "newly created, revolutionary law". S. Korea has always had existing laws in place regarding manipulation and coercion, and grooming falls under this.
What made this case difficult is the fact that Sae Ron has passed away and unable to defend herself. So how could you expect the parents to go to the police when the perpetrator is someone like Kim Soo Hyun with immense wealth, power and influence?! I'm done with this.
The claim that grooming was ālegalā before 2020 is completely and utterly false. S. Korea has always had laws like the Act on the Protection of Children and Youth Against Sexual Abuse (1997) that criminalised exploitation of minors, regardless of the age of consent. Grooming was never ever legalāit was always a form of exploitation. Just because there had been cases of predators who were acquitted does not mean it was 'legal' - it was simply because they took advantage of a weak system back then. If it was 'legal' none of the cases would have gone to court. It was precisely because it was illegal that the prosecutors had a case! And they still had to fight it out. Do you even understand how the law and courts work!? The ignorance in this thread is baffling.
The familyās decision not to press charges doesnāt mean the behavior was legal. It has NEVER BEEN LEGAL.
Going to the media is not an admission that the law was on the groomerās sideāitās proof that systemic barriers exist, making it difficult for influential individuals like Kim Soo Hyun to be challenged when they have committed such a crime.
Look at the masses of supporters on Kim Soo Hyun's side even after the family has stepped forward.
Itās naive to assume that the police are completely bias-free. To suggest that the family should simply āgo to the policeā and expect them to cuff up Kim Soo Hyun and press charges with the drop of a hat ignores the reality of difficult it is to pursue justice for victims. To assume that the police would automatically arrest a high-profile individual based on whether something is "legal" or "illegal" is unrealistic and dismissive of the systemic challenges victims and their families face.
This isnāt a simple case of a DUI, where evidence is straightforward and power dynamics are irrelevant. Exploitation and grooming are complex crimes that hide and thrive in the shadows of power and privilege. The fact that Kim Soo Hyun wasnāt arrested doesnāt mean his actions were legalāor that it was legal pre-2020 before the clarification of the law that has now made it harder for offenders to squirm out of their crimes.
The reason he wasnāt arrested has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with his power, influence, and the systemic corruption that protects celebrities and powerful individuals.
When a celebrity has the resources to intimidate victims, manipulate public opinion, and sway law enforcement, justice becomes harder to pursue. Justice becomes a privilege for the wealthy and powerful. The family didnāt go to the police because they knew the system would fail themānot because the law was on his side. Stop twisting this into a debate about legality.
JUST LOOK AT THE DAMN POWER IMBALANCE IN THIS CASE. Kim Soo Hyun with his money and resources has been manipulating everything in the media from Day 1. Do you honestly believe someone with his level of power couldnāt use his money and connections to pressure the police or silence the family? Do you think the police are incorruptible? Are you guys for real?! Did you skip that article where his team had been calling Sae Ron's dad non-stop even though they told the media they're not in contact!? Everything they said had been nothing but lies.
This case isn't a simple binary situation of "it's legal prior to 2020" or "it's illegal post-2020".
This is a complex, deeply sensitive issue involving the exploitation of a minor and the systemic failures that allow powerful individuals like Kim Soo Hyun to evade accountability.
South Korea, like many other countries, has a history of celebrities and influential figures using their status to shield themselves from consequences. Instead of oversimplifying the situation, do your goddamn research and understand the realities of how power, money, and influence distort justice in cases like this, and not just willfully insisting that, "it was legal pre-2020" because it CERTAINLY WAS NOT.
GROOMING IS A SUBJECTIVE DEFINITION BASED ON YOUR VALUES??? YOUR VALUES?!
LMFAO. yeah, that totally said everything about YOUR values.
grooming has NEVER been legal in s.korea. saying it is "legal" because there was a loophole in the law pre-2020 is outright wrong.
//why was the police not involved//
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LEGALITY. KSH is a person with influence, money, fame and power. do you really think it would be easy for the police to take the family seriously!?
have you not read that the family are taking steps to charge him from day 1? but they never wanted to reach that step, their first demand was f or him to apologise and acknowledge that he was the cause of their daughter's death.
///His actions of grooming and having sex with a minor over 13 were totally legal prior to 2020///
NOT LEGAL. just because the case was lost and the law was not robust enough to prosecute an offender, does not mean there was NOT a law in place. it has NEVER been legal. it's people like you who misunderstand and abuse the law that enable so many predators to go off scot-free.
courts exist to interpret and apply the law based on the specific facts of each case. precedents are based on the specific facts and circumstances of a case. if the facts of a new case are different, the precedent may not apply. judges have the discretion to distinguish between cases. they can rule that a precedent does not apply if the circumstances are sufficiently different in the current case.
courts are not bound to follow a single precedent blindly, especially if it conflicts with current laws or societal values. high-profile cases often lead to public outrage, in which the court would also take this into consideration. as with the case you linked, that case has led to reforms of the law seeing the age raised to 16 in an effort to **clarify** the law. it DOES NOT mean that previously, it was "legal". it just means the existing law was not enough to protect the victim. grooming has ALWAYS been illegal in s. korea under the Act of Protection of Children and Youth and has always been recognised as a form of exploitation and coercion.
so yes, kim soo hyun could get away with it by saying sae ron consented, thereby the defense would be able to use the precedent as an argument.
my disagreement with you guys is your claim that "grooming is legal prior to 2020" - which is NOT true. grooming has always been illegal under other protection acts, and there was a loophole in that law that enabled offenders to get off scot-free. it does not mean that it was "legal" in any sense of the word.
Even if the age of consent wasnāt explicitly defined pre-2020, manipulating a minor into a sexual relationship has **always** been a crime. The 2020 update to specify the age of consent as 16 was about **clarifying** the law, not suddenly making it something illegal before the age of 16. Sexual exploitation of minors was always punishable under broader child protection laws. For minors aged 13ā19, sexual acts could be prosecuted if they involved exploitation, coercion, or abuse of authority. For someone of Kim Soo Hyun's position, this definitely can fall under any of those categories even BEFORE 2020.